The Forge Archives

I'm going to cut straight to the chase:

If you declare to a player you are pushing a vase off a balcony in game and that player then continues playing using the smashed vase as a fact, it is not because they gave crediblity to you about it falling and smashing. It's because their mind automatically drew a conclusion as to what happened next and they then gave crediblity to their own conclusions, rather than giving cred to your intent in pushing the vase.

You didn't get crediblity for your intent (for the vase to be smashed), you simply triggered conclusions to be drawn in the other players mind. The other player then gave credibility to his own conclusions.


On a side note, I feel I'm right that this is beyond credibility, in that at the Forge cred's usually refered to as being exchanged between individuals, rather than granting it to oneself. But on the other hand, I think you can draw conclusions in your head and still think "Ah, that's crap!" or "Ah, that'll just make for a crap game" and not give your own conclusions cred...so credibility is still involved...just not in the way the Forge traditionally uses the term.

Ah, but what if the player says "nope, that didn't happen.  The guy reaches to push the vase, but slips on blood and hits the floor"  ?

The set up of the situation (there being a vase on a balcony. It is pushed) does need cred. What doesn't need cred to be given is the falling, then smashed vase. What is imagined next in the listeners mind does not involve an exchange of cred between players.

Take this as an example: As GM, I say a HOT woman rushes up to you and tears off her clothes. I then shut up.

Now, if you play on, what are you playing from? Do you say your PC is shocked, yet interested by her nakedness, for example? Or whatever came to your mind (C'mon, it was a hot woman, something must have come to mind!)

Dude, I haven't said what happened next. And for this example I wont. Your working from your own assumption of what happens next. I didn't make a statement that she was naked underneath. You didn't, couldn't have given me cred for a statement I didn't make. You came to your own conclusion and gave yourself credibility enough for it that your now using it as a fact of play (enough to say your interested in her nakedness).

All I got cred for was "a HOT woman rushes up to you and tears off her clothes.". After that, I added no more statements and certainly didn't recieve cred for anything else.


Tony: Can you tell me if I'm going off track again?

Huh?  Sorry, I was distracted by... well... errr...

Right.  Fully clothed RPG theory!  I think you're pretty much on track, but that the topic is close enough to familiar ground that people can easily get side-tracked into things they know well.

I suspect that Alan is gravitating to another, far more familiar, point about credibility.  Yes, there are many ways that the vase on the balcony can be negotiated, at many different points and combinations.  Alan, am I reading you correctly?

I gather (from PM as well as these posts) that Callan is talking about something subtly different:  As he says, a player cannot grant you credibility for something that you didn't say.  They can't even negotiate about whether you have that credibility.  You haven't asked for any credibility.  You've offered the credibility, and the fulfillment of your implication, to the other players.  Yes?

I'm not sure I follow.  Seems like standard old credibility granting to me.

You said you pushed the vase off of the balcony.  I gave you credibility to say that.

I then envision the vase being smashed on the ground after the fall.  Nobody explicitly said that, so you are concluding that it didn't involve passing credibility amongst players, that somehow I gave credibility to myself.

I don't see it that way.  A vase falls off the balcony...vases are fragile, gravity accelerates things that fall, the impact with the ground smashes fragile things.  These are derivatives of very basic natural laws.

Natural laws we all agreed to implicitly or explicitly when we sat down to play the game.  To me this is absolutely no different than knowing that in when I roll a d20 to hit and I beat my threshold number I can make another to-hit roll to get a critical hit.  That doesn't need to be explicitly granted in game.  It was a basic assumption of play from the moment we all agreed to abide by the rules of d20.

Similarly the idea that a vase will smash when it hits the ground after falling from a height doesn't need to be explicitly agreed to.  It is also a basic assumption of play from the moment we all agreed (usually implicitly) to abide by natural laws.

But it still very much involves you granting me credibility, because at any point later in the scene when I mentioned the smashed vase you instead could quite rightly point out that since we never made a Saving Throw vs. Crushing Blow we don't know for sure that the vase was broken.  Choosing not to do that is granting me the credibility to rule the vase smashed.

This seems quite easily handled under the basics of credibility without needing to search for a more exotic explanation to me.  Am I missing some additional nuance...?

I'm with Ralph.  Just cuz one or more players assume something will happen in the SiS as a consequence of a prevously accepted action, doesn't mean it actually does.  Someone can always insist we retcon and do that saving throw (or equivalent).  Alternately, when someone then acts as if the vase were broken -- and no one challenges their assumption -- we've just giving that person credibility.

A big "me too" with Alan and Ralph, on this one. SIS is a function of the social and communicative processes of human beings ("shared imagined space"). One does not talk about "individual" SISes; that's a contradiction in terms.

Best,
Ron

Callan does have a point which is worth noting, though I suspect it's been duly noted by some already. When someone says something in a game, there are a whole host of additional implications of that statement that generally get granted credibility along with the 'literal imaginary' meaning of the statement itself. These additional implications default to:

- the players' beliefs about how things work in the real world

- the players' beliefs about how things work in the game

- the players' beliefs about how things work in other kinds of artworks relevantly similar to those in the genre of the game, etc.

It's quite striking both (a) how much a single statement actually winds up putting into the SIS and (b) how disagreements about what a statement implies for the SIS between players can go unnoticed, potentially to cause problems later.

Linguistically speaking it can seem weird to talk about 'granting' credibility to these commonly accepted implications of our statements because there's no conscious process involved with it; we accept those implications along with accepting the statement.

But in spite of that it's still, as Ralph, Alan, Ron, etc. are saying, part of the credibility-granting process. Because there can be conscious acts of agreement, disagreement, clarification, correction etc. at those very same points. An obvious example is the way that some physics/engineering nerds respond to spells in fantasy games - "introducing that much energy in that time span would cause..." "...a rock falling from that distance..."  This is an attempt to get credibility granted to natural laws of this world in the fantasy world (where it's not just asshattery). On the other hand there's no need normally for anyone to consciously grant credibility to the assumption that a rock will fall when you throw it up in the world of the game, but if there's some anti-gravity magic or something than the GM will correct your unstated and un-thought assumption: "the rock just keeps going..."

But it seems to me that as long as you don't think 'granting credibility' is a conscious process which takes every single factoid of the SIS or IISs as its values, there's no real difficulty here, and nothing extra to be appreciated beyond philosophical subtleties.

Hey all,

The set up for the push of the vase requires good old credibility. Only the set up.

Quote from: RalphI don't see it that way. A vase falls off the balcony...vases are fragile, gravity accelerates things that fall, the impact with the ground smashes fragile things. These are derivatives of very basic natural laws.

Natural laws we all agreed to implicitly or explicitly when we sat down to play the game.

Giving credibility to your own conclusions is really just a side assertion of this argument. I'm not interested winning anyone over about it. If you see coming to a conclusion about the vase as just as following very basic, straight forward principles that come to mind, that's all I want to refer to. What's important is once a situation is described and accepted/given cred (the vase being pushed), your mind will draw together the principles and come to a conclusion with them. That your coming to a conclusion using the statement, is all that I need to assert is happening (I think you agree as a listener your coming to a conclusion, right?).

Quote from: AlanJust cuz one or more players assume something will happen in the SiS as a consequence of a prevously accepted action, doesn't mean it actually does.

Yes! But what if I, as the GM, predict the conclusion they will come to, and want that? And that's why I described the vase being pushed, or the woman ripping off her clothes? Because I'm predicting the conclusion they will come to, BUT I want the players to come to that themselves. I don't want to just say "the vase falls" or "the woman is naked" and ask for credibility for those statements. If the players come to these conclusions themselves I never had to get credibility from players, for these things to have happened in game!.

Can you see the power in bypassing the credibility process? As a GM/player, only having to get cred for the scene set up. Once you set that up, once that vase is pushed/that women rips off her garb, you don't have to ask for one more jot of credibility for the vase to smash or the woman to be naked!

I'm thinking it might be hard to see the power involved from say a simulationist perspective. Try these two gamist examples. A is the GM asking for cred every step of the way. B is where the GM asks for cred for the set up, then lets the player come to his own conclusion.
A. Here the player does not know how saving throws Vs death work at all, and the GM rolls the dice.
GM "Okay, you have +10 to your save and the target number is 8"
Player "Oh. Okay *gives cred to this statement* that sounds good"
GM rolls "And....you rolled a one. Ones automatically fail! Your character dies!"
Player "Oh, right, okay *sort of gives cred*"

B. The player has read all about saving throws Vs death.
GM "Okay, make your save, target number 8"
Player "Ha, I'm +10 on this!"
Player rolls "And...I got a one. Oh shit, ones auto fail! I'm freaking dead! DAMN! *starts feverently working out how to tactically avoid this next time*"

One of the powers of not having to ask for cred is that you can even do very unpleasant in game things to people and they will accept it with VIGOUR! Because they come to the conclusion themselves, rather than you asking for cred for for you stating the conclusion instead*.

At the least, everyone can plainly see there's a difference in mental process betwee A and B?

Quote from: AlanAlternately, when someone then acts as if the vase were broken -- and no one challenges their assumption -- we've just giving that person credibility.

Yes!! This is actually a really exciting point I want to talk about, but I want to wait until we clear the above material. Indeed, that's what the * is for: At this point, you as GM said the vase is pushed...and now as the player acts as if it's broken, he's asking for YOUR cred for this statement about it being broken. You as GM would normally think you'd ask for cred for the pushing and then you'd also ask for cred for the smashing too, wouldn't you? But he's asking for cred from YOU, for the smashing.

Ron: I'm not talking about SIS, except at the scene set up point. After that SIS is not relevant until the other person comes to their own conclusion and asserts/acts on their conclusion (thus the other person asks for cred for their own conclusion to become part of the SIS). I'm talking about what happens between those two contact points with the SIS. To crunch it down, I'm talking about getting a statement into the SIS (via the usual cred method), in order to provoke someone else to add something to the SIS. Something I want them to add, and I made my statement in such a way as to provoke them to conclude what I want them to conclude. Then they, rather than me, will be asking for cred for such a statement. Which is incredibly useful, once you realise the implications of getting your own statement into the SIS, by someone else getting it into the SIS (like a willing mule).

That's why it's beyond crediblity. Because this technique lets me get statements into the SIS, through other people (other people asking for cred for the conclusions I wanted them to make). Apart from asking for cred for the set up, I don't ask for any more. In fact, the other person is asking for cred from me, for the conclusion I wanted them to come to.

PS: If the other person doesn't come to the exact conclusion I want them to, that doesn't disrupt this idea at all. It's actually really good if that happens...but I'll talk about that latter.

Quote from: Noon

Quote from: AlanJust cuz one or more players assume something will happen in the SiS as a consequence of a prevously accepted action, doesn't mean it actually does.

Yes! But what if I, as the GM, predict the conclusion they will come to, and want that?

Then the group is assigning credibility to the first person who acts on the assumption that the vase is broken.  Silence is consent.  Why the players consent -- or the fact that consent is unanimous -- has no bearing on the issue.

Well, are you sure you're talking about the same issue then?

How and why the players draw their own conclusions has no bearing on the issue of credibility.  But let's assume that Callan isn't talking about credibility.  How players draw conclusions does have bearing on the issue of how ideas are generated and acknowledged in the mind of a player, whether as an acceptance of outside stimulus, or as an internal creation.

Yeah, I think Tony is right.  I don't think you're talking about Credibility at all here.  As Alan points out, there is zero bypassing of credibility that is going on in your examples.

If I draw my own conclusions about what is going on...they mean absolutely ZIP as far as the SIS is concerned.  They may well form part of my Individual Imaginary Space and I may act as if my conclusions are true.  But until I do something that is a direct consequence of my conclusion no credibility to that conclusion has been assigned.  Only then will people either deny me (by rejecting my conclusion) or grant me (through silence or affirmation) my credibility.

At some point I declare something like "I sweep up the broken pieces of the vase".  If the GM says "Ok, what do you want to do with them?" and the other players look at me expectantly, then I've just (at that moment, and not a moment before) been granted credibility to state the vase is broken.  If instead the GM says "Suprisingly, the vase seems to be undamaged" and the other players are like "wow, that's one tough vase" and I say "maybe its magic" then I have not been granted credibility for my statement, but the GM has been for his.

This is absolutely bog standard traditional play where players and GM are trying to outwit each other.  The player reads into the GMs description and comes to a conclusion about something (like "oooh...I bet removing the gem from the statues eye sets off a trap...probably the statue comes to life or something...")  That's a conclusion just like concluding the vase broke or the woman is naked.  I may well assume that I'm right.  But ZERO credibility has been granted to me.


Now, if you want to talk about various techniques (such as devious psychological ploys) you can use to increase the likely hood of eventually being granted credibility (which is what it sounds like you're actually touching on to me), that would be a cool discussion.  One can liken it to "leading the witness" in court, or a salesman playing the "3 yes statements in a row" game.

I sorta agree with Noon. Sorta.

1. SIS isn't real, meaning that if Joe pushes the vase and no one challenges its breaking, it is, IMO, indeterminate at worst as to whether it has entered SIS as a broken vase.

That is, if you ask, after the fact, everyone at the table if the vase broke and they all say "yes" then it entered SIS as a broken vase on the basis of Joe's push getting credibility and general expectations.

2. The case where the broken vase is challenged after the fact is an assumption clash. That's certainly *related* to granting of credibility but I don't think it's a "credibility issue" at heart (it's an 'assumption' issue).

Certainly the resolution of that would be related to credibility, but someone pointing out that there wasn't a save vs. crushing blow is, IMO, different than challenging either the laws of physics that say the vase fell or the player's statements of pushing it.

What is challenged is the statement, later, that it was broken.

Again, chances are, the state of the vase, assuming the rules-call is held as a valid point, is indeterminate until a roll is made. Thus it may well be fair to say that the broken vase entered SIS as this doesn't, IMO, retroactively invalidate the period of play wherein most of the players (or maybe all, if someone thought of the save later) had the vase held as broken.

-Marco

Quote from: Alan

Quote from: Noon

Quote from: AlanJust cuz one or more players assume something will happen in the SiS as a consequence of a prevously accepted action, doesn't mean it actually does.

Yes! But what if I, as the GM, predict the conclusion they will come to, and want that?

Then the group is assigning credibility to the first person who acts on the assumption that the vase is broken.  Silence is consent.  Why the players consent -- or the fact that consent is unanimous -- has no bearing on the issue.

'Why the players consent' isn't part of this issue/thread?

Rather than having no bearing on the issue, this IS the issue!

Tony noted it's easy to gravitate to another, far more familiar point about crediblity. I'll ask every to check what they think is the issue.

Everyone just be careful: just because I mention crediblity, doesn't mean I'm talking about the lumpley principle. If you believe that is the issue and then anything I say about 'why people consent' is being associated with LP, rather than being the subject itself, your going to confuse things terribly.

If it help, this old thread is part of the groundwork that leads to this current one. This thread is a refinement of that idea, but I didn't link to it because I thought before that it would have hampered things. Although it's not exactly what I want to talk about, in that thread everyone grasped the idea involved.

Edit: And just for venting purposes, its driving me nuts that I'm being told 'your not really talking about crediblity'. I named the thread 'beyond crediblity', as in 'outside of cred' or 'things that happen without using cred at all'. I know I'm not talking about the idea of cred! Your agreeing with me! I wish I didn't have to bring the idea of cred up at all!

Quote from: ValamirNow, if you want to talk about various techniques (such as devious psychological ploys) you can use to increase the likely hood of eventually being granted credibility (which is what it sounds like you're actually touching on to me), that would be a cool discussion. One can liken it to "leading the witness" in court, or a salesman playing the "3 yes statements in a row" game.

I have been talking about this from the begining!!

The only reasons I didn't bring up examples like those, is in how they are all based on tricking the other person. The technique gets tainted this way with being 'devious' and wont easily be associated with healthy roleplay by readers here. The fact is, it is a neutral technique and its consensual, healthy use is the heart of exploration, used a phenominal amount in normal roleplay. If I presented those as examples, it's like presenting a few bad apples, to show someone how they are standing in the middle of a healthy, abundant apple orchard. Having hundreds of apples around just seems normal, and certainly these rotten apples don't seem anything like what you'd have anything to do with.